The Republican Brain (48 page)

But matters are very different when you are trying to communicate with someone who does not share your Enlightenment values—or indeed, with the public at large. Here, the tacit assumptions of those who think “facts” and “reason” are the way to convince people are actually likely to be a hindrance to success.

Such are some
scientific
ways of trying to communicate and persuade—but liberals and scientists should not get overoptimistic about the idea of convincing conservatives to change their most deeply held beliefs. There are far too many factors arrayed against this possibility at present—not only the psychology of conservatism itself, but our current political polarization, by parties and also by information channels.

You can't have an unemotional conversation when everything is framed as a battle, as it currently is. Our warfare over reality, and for control of the country, is just too intense. This unending combat is terribly destructive for America, and I don't really know of any good way to bring an end to it.

Actually, that's not quite right: I don't know of a way to stop it that conservatives would actually
agree
on. But if conservatives were interested in compromise, an olive branch, then this might be a way to achieve it.

Imagine that liberals and conservatives were to agree to a truce, based on a joint acceptance of the body of science surveyed in this book. Both sides would respectfully conclude from this science that liberals and conservatives
both
have different strengths and weaknesses, which come out in separate situations.

Liberals are better at getting at the truth in complex, nuanced situations—as are their psychological brethren, scientists. And that's in significant part because they have the dispositions and personalities for it—they tolerate ambiguity and uncertainty, and they like engaging in deep and taxing thinking. So part of the truce would require conservatives to recognize that if you want knowledge, you must go to a person (or better yet, group of persons, like the scientific community) that is adept at determining what it actually is. You don't just get to make it up for yourself and deny what actual experts say, because you're sure you're right.

But conservatives are clearly better at being decisive, sticking to a course, being unwavering. So part of the truce would require liberals to recognize that conservatives must play a critically important role in a variety of leadership positions, in making sure that choices get made—
provided that they heed liberals and lead in a reality-based fashion
. I am not talking about going to war with Iraq based on misinformation, and being unswervingly convinced that this is a good idea. Rather, I am talking about something like, say, leading a patriotic campaign to make America the best nation in the world at dealing with climate change and adopting clean energy technologies.

This may sound a little Kumbaya—but I am serious in my view that our politics would be vastly more healthy if we acknowledged our strengths and weaknesses, and showed one another some deference in our respective areas of strength. I want to have liberals around to tell me what is true, but I want conservatives on my
team
, and to help me be decisive, effective, and stay the course.

To see as much, consider a few recent examples of conservative strength and liberal weakness. As I was completing this book, the nations of Europe were trying to patch together yet another plan to fix their gigantic debt problems, after “kicking the can down the road” for months and months. And Occupy Wall Street protesters were engaging in chaotic and largely incoherent protests, thus probably assuring that they'll never be as politically effective as the right wing movement with which they're so often compared: The Tea Party.

To my mind, these are very different but related examples of inadequate
psychological conservatism
. Europe needed one decisive shock and awe plan to fix everything—one big blast from a really big bazooka—rather than endless dithering and summits.

And Occupy Wall Street needed a clear agenda that directly advanced the electoral hopes of President Obama and the Democratic Party—for that is the only way there will ever be progress on behalf of the 99 percent, and against the one.

But were either Europe's “leaders,” or Occupy Wall Street's “leaders,” aware that
psychological liberalism
was their problem, and that they needed to go against their instincts? I doubt it.

The point is that conservatism and liberalism alike represents core parts of human nature, and each has many virtues and benefits. That's why the notion that studying the psychology, neuroscience, or even the genetics of left-right differences will lead to a “new eugenics” is so silly and misinformed. Why would you want to try to breed away character traits that are so vital and beneficial, and such a central part of who we are?

My current suspicion—though I know the science is inadequate to prove it—is that we probably evolved to have the capacity to be both “conservative,” and also to be “liberal,” because
both are really beneficial to us
. The problem in modern times, and in the United States today, is that we've gotten terribly confused, and put these two sides of ourselves in opposition. Which is disastrous. They need to be operating together, rather than at cross purposes.

But as I said, I don't expect conservatives to actually listen to me.

So instead of telling conservatives how
they
might fare better—for instance, start heeding reality-based former allies like Bruce Bartlett and David Frum—let me instead tell my fellow liberals how
they
might. After all, liberals are very open to new ideas and to change—and change is very much what they need.

So here's the advice, liberals:
You need to be way more conservative
. And I don't mean that a policy sense, but in a psychological one.

First, liberals need to be more “conservative” whenever conservatives are being unyielding, as they have so often been of late—and indeed, as they are more inclined to be. It simply makes no sense to try to compromise with someone who won't compromise. It just weakens your negotiating position, especially when it is
expected
that liberals will be the ones who ultimately flinch in a game of chicken.

More generally, liberals need to be more “conservative” not in the substance of their ideas, but in how they strive to make them a reality. In politics and in advocacy alike, liberals need to show much more unity, much less fractious dissent and infighting, much more loyalty and shared purpose.

Take liberals and President Obama. He's the best hope they've got—in fact, the only one. And yet for many, the constant instinct is to find flaws with him; and liberals are vastly less committed to devotedly supporting him than the Tea Party is to attacking him.

Why? Because they're
liberals
. It certainly doesn't help that some of them can draw more attention to themselves, and stand out from the crowd, by coming up with novel and ingenious ways of bashing a president from their own party.

But guess what, liberals: Obama needs you right now. He needs your trust, your devotion. You ought to try to show him the same loyalty that conservatives showed George W. Bush, and forget about that little issue where he didn't do things precisely as you would have liked. You should defer to his judgment, and give him . . . your
faith
.

And yes, I am fully aware that it sounds icky. But that's precisely the point—this is about going against your instincts, instincts that, in this case, impair your effectiveness.

The same lesson applies across liberal land. Dear environmental groups: Stop fighting amongst yourselves over petty differences. You have vast resources, yet you hardly get the most out of them. You try to let a thousand flowers bloom, and occupy ever more specialized and technocratic niches—and then you wonder why you fail.

And note: Becoming more unified does not just mean just holding a meeting where all your leaders get together and have long conversations. It means coming up with one unified plan, one singular purpose, and then pushing it as if there was no other choice and everything depends on it. The way conservatives would.

Here's the thing, liberals: We have a key advantage over conservatives. We heed reality, and are willing to change. So we can course-correct if we're going in the wrong direction, and do so based on the best available information.

In this case, the best information points to an inconvenient truth. It suggests that we have an inherent tendency, which we rarely even recognize, to be
politically ineffectual
—because we're too busy differentiating ourselves from one another, highlighting our differences rather than our similarities, lingering in uncertainty rather than being decisive, attacking our own teammates rather than finding common cause, and trying to communicate complicated, nuanced facts rather than clear and motivating messages.

But because we're flexible, we can also
change this
. And in the process, we can stay a step ahead of conservatives.

Let me suggest that we start conquering this not-always-advantageous side of our natures right away—though we should probably share a few drinks first. That would definitely help make us more unified.

Conservatives and liberals aren't the only ones who ought to heed the research described in these pages. So should two other broadly liberal groups: Journalists and fact checkers on the one hand, and what I'll call “liberal contrarians” on the other.

Journalists and fact checkers: You need to take seriously the notion that what
appears
to be true might be just that. Republicans today really are more doggedly misinformed about politics and economics (tax policy, healthcare reform), about science (evolution, global warming), and so on. Indeed, there is a very good reason for this; and
not
a reason that is demeaning, or relies on the dubious assertion that that Republicans are somehow
bad people
, or
less intelligent
.

No: Perhaps they respond differently to information than do liberals—thanks to different psychologies, different media channels, or some combination of these and other factors. Perhaps they cling more strongly to wrong beliefs, out of deference to authority, unity with the group, and simple searching for closure. Perhaps they
need
to do so.

This book takes seriously the idea—increasingly difficult to deny—that in the aggregate, Republicans and Democrats really think about
facts
, about reality itself, differently. And it has sought to explain how such a misadventure could come about, drawing on the best scientific tools available to aid in such an account.

Because after all, if this idea of differential approaches to reality is true, then that really matters. It has dramatic consequences for policy; but perhaps even more momentous implications still for the tone and the assumptions we bring into political “debates.” In particular, an “on the one hand, on the other hand” approach to journalism and the adjudicating of facts may simply be intellectually irresponsible. It may be just a ruse to go about this in a bipartisan way, if one side is getting it wrong all the time and the other is not.